Reposting links, quotes, and comics with large colored text is fun, isn't it?

I guess you do not want to take this thread seriously, and that's what's not funny--your thread. While I may have reposted the Skeptic and the toon--it's because you have failed to add anything new to this thread. Your sources are as tiring as the toon is getting to be. But as long as you keep posting the same drivel, I guess the toon is still on point.

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, concludes this panel report from the America's Climate Choices suite of studies. As decision makers respond to these risks, the nation's scientific enterprise can contribute both by continuing to improve understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change, and by improving and expanding the options available to limit the magnitude of climate change and adapt to its impacts....

..The report concludes that a carbon pricing system (either cap-and-trade, taxes, or a combination of the two) is the most important step for providing needed incentives to reduce emissions. There is also a need, however, for complementary policies aimed at ensuring rapid progress to: increase energy efficiency; accelerate the development of renewable energy sources; advance full-scale demonstration of nuclear power and carbon capture and storage systems; and retrofit or replace existing emissions-intensive energy infrastructure. Research and development of new technologies that could help reduce emissions further in the long term also should be strongly supported...

This new report from the National Research Council concludes that emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earths climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Therefore, emissions reductions choices made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia. Policy choices can be informed by recent advances in climate science that quantify the relationships between increases in carbon dioxide and global warming, related climate changes, and resulting impacts, such as changes in streamflow, wildfires, crop productivity, extreme hot summers, and sea level rise. The report quantifies several future impacts per degree (°C) of global warming. The report also demonstrates that emissions reductions larger than about 80%, relative to whatever peak global emissions rate may be reached, are required to approximately stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations for a century or so at any chosen target level.

Cost of those panels was more like $50k, the government just paid most of it.

Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.
This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?
This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?
The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?

Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.
This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?
This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?
The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?

A friend of mine just looked into it - total cost to power his 2500 sq foot house was 50k, which turned into 15k after government subsidies. That is Colorado, though.

Finetunes - the PETM was caused by oceanic methane being released, if we warm the oceans enough it will happen again, but not anytime soon. CO2 warms the oceans, and once the oceans are warm at the edges of the continental plate where the methane is (hundreds of meters below the surface), it releases the methane and spikes the temperature up 10 degrees C, which kills all large animals. But that will happen much later, all the ice at the poles melts long before that happens.

With milder winters affecting their food and hibernation habits, they're forced into a meat-dependent diet putting them at odds with humans and livestock. They could end up as despised as wolves.

A number of complex factors are believed to be working against grizzlies, including climate change. Milder winters have allowed bark beetles to decimate the white-bark pine, whose nuts are a critical food source for grizzlies. Meanwhile, there has been a slight seasonal shift for plants that grizzlies rely on when they prepare to hibernate and when they emerge in the spring, changing the creatures' denning habits.

The result, some biologists say, is that bears accustomed to feasting on berries and nuts in remote alpine areas are being pushed into a more meat-dependent diet that puts them on a collision course with the other dominant regional omnivore: humans.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

A friend of mine just looked into it - total cost to power his 2500 sq foot house was 50k, which turned into 15k after government subsidies. That is Colorado, though.

Obama only allows for a 30% FEDERAL GOV tax credit. Everything else would have to come from the state or the local provider.

Tell your friend to look at it this way:
current interest rates are low and investing into stocks is still very much a gamble. If you put 15K, (which will be more like 23k out of pocket but you will pay less tax next year) on your roof you can make up to 13% apr guaranteed. Indeed rising E prices will improve your return. This pretty much beats any other investment. And: after the panels have paid for themselves they will still produce energy for an unknown time period. The warranty is 25 years!
Also if you do sell your home and the buyer does not want solar you can take them with you or your home will sell much faster than a non solar home...
just some thoughts to consider.

Currently you get a 30% TAX CREDIT.
This is a tax break ... lower taxes ... you know ... you hate to pay taxes ....Taxed Enough Already ... ja?.... instead of paying taxes you can buy solar panels ... ja?
This only helps when you have to pay taxes in the first place, ja?
The government does not pay anything, ja ....? It just says: "You owe me less, bro/sis...!" Get it, ja?

We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.

We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.

Yes, that's why it's great to be rich in the USA. We can buy elections and call the "rich" party tea party, we get massive tax breaks while the looser schmos have to work their asses off just to be able to go to the dentist. I love it!

We all get it. The global warming claims are a gigantic wealth tranfer scheme from the poor to the rich. The mandates allow the rich to live as they always have and allow the poor to die and go away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

Yes, that's why it's great to be rich in the USA. We can buy elections and call the "rich" party tea party, we get massive tax breaks while the looser schmos have to work their asses off just to be able to go to the dentist. I love it!

And with AGW the rich will be the only ones who will be able to keep their air conditioners on high. tm will still not answer questions until

but with genetic engineering who knows maybe pigs will fly sooner than we think.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

The rapidly growing world population and rising consumption of biofuels are increasing demand for both food and biofuels. This exaggerates both food and fuel shortages. Using food crops such as corn grain to produce ethanol raises major nutritional and ethical concerns. Nearly 60% of humans in the world are currently malnourished, so the need for grains and other basic foods is critical. Growing crops for fuel squanders land, water and energy resources vital for the production of food for human consumption. Using corn for ethanol increases the price of U.S. beef, chicken, pork, eggs, breads, cereals, and milk more than 10% to 30%.

A UN report warns that a hasty switch to biofuels could have major impacts on livelihoods and the environment.
Produced by a cross-agency body, UN Energy, the report says that biofuels can bring real benefits.
But there can be serious consequences if forests are razed for plantations, if food prices rise and if communities are excluded from ownership, it says.
And it concludes that biofuels are more effective when used for heat and power rather than in transport.

The United Nations Environment Programme finds research into biofuels impacts on dead zones, biodiversity and a range of other environmental issues lacking.
A U.N. panel said today that biofuels' effects on air and water have not been sufficiently explored despite growing global production.

The U.N. Environment Programme's report concludes that so-called lifecycle assessments must go beyond calculating greenhouse gas emissions and consider how agricultural production of feedstocks affect the acidification and nutrient loading of waterways.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

A new energy revolution similar to shifts from wood to coal to oil is inevitable as climate change and oil scarcity drive a global search for sustainability in power production. But even the promise of renewable energy holds drawbacks.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

YOU MIGHT WANT TO RESPOND TO THESE BEFORE POSTING MORE---I REFUTED OR DEBUNKED YOURS---

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Jg, most of what you have posted before your trip and after have been challenged. You have not responded to the challenges by refuting the evidence that was provided to refute your postings. You have not tried to refute or challenge what I have posted. Rather than posting more material from the same old sites, try to explain what has been challenged and challenge or refute what I've posted. Here is some of what has gone unchallenged:

Using one of jg's reference links, C3 Headlines, I used one of the articles to illustrate one of the techniques that they employ to cast doubt that AGW is real. They pull a quote from an article and point to the fact that the IPCC models are faulty and therefore AGW isn't happening.

Read here and here. IPCC climate models and those of major countries are designed to fail with significant predictability. Why?

Besides all climate models being purposefully designed to focus on human CO2 emissions as the cause of global warming, none of the climate models are able to simulate cloud impact and cloud coverage correctly (or even with a modicum of accuracy). Clouds are beyond even the most powerful computers and virtual simulations, which means the climate models will always produce incorrect results moving forward. As a prominent scientist from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research recently stated:

Quote:

"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future."

It is a little-known but significant fact that about 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered by clouds at any given time. But not all clouds are the same; different types of clouds affect the Earth's climate differently. While some types of clouds help to warm the Earth, others help to cool it.

Currently, all of the Earth's clouds together exert a net cooling effect on our planet. But the large and opposing influences of clouds on the Earth's climate begs the question: What will be the net effect of all of the Earth's clouds on climate as the Earth continues to warm in the future? Will clouds accelerate warming or help offset, or dull, warming? Right now,

Quote:

"The scientific community is uncertain about how the effects of clouds will change in the future," says Hugh Morrison, a scientist at NCAR in Boulder, Colo.

That's why, in 1997, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) described clouds as "the largest source of uncertainty" in predictions of climate change. To reduce this uncertainty and improve predictions of climate change/global warming, scientists are now working to better understand the relationships between clouds and climate......

Most scientists doubt that the net cooling effect of clouds will ever be large enough to completely offset ongoing warming. But many scientists say that if warming were to increase the number or kind of cooling clouds or decrease the presence of warming clouds, the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth's climate would probably increase, and thereby moderate, or offset, ongoing warming.

If warming were to continue, the net cooling effect of clouds would increase and, in a negative feedback loop, perpetuate the moderating force on ongoing warming provided by clouds. The result: The Earth's end-of-the-century temperature may be pulled down toward the lower end of its predicted range.

But, if on the other hand, warming were to increase the number or kind of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, scientists say the current net cooling effect of clouds on the Earth's climate would probably decrease; and an important moderating force on ongoing warming would thereby diminish. The result: The Earth's end-of-the-century temperature may be pushed up towards the upper end of its predicted range.

This resulting rise in temperature would, in a positive feedback loop, tend to promote the formation of even more warming clouds or further reduce the presence of cooling clouds. Either way, temperatures would rise even higher. This temperature increase would tend to further increase the presence of warming clouds or decrease the presence of cooling clouds, and thereby perpetuate the warming cycle.

If you take the time and refer to the original article, you will find that C3 often takes things out of context or misquotes without referring to the conclusion of the article itself. I have done this in previous post of jg to refute his/her posts.

Like it or not, this is a science thread. If you want to refute AGW, then present scientific evidence to the contrary. Don't keep using the same old blogs that aren't based on any science at all. If you want to continue to post from blog links, you will find that people will stop reading anything you post here, and maybe its time to close this link.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

I noticed that jg will make comments on other threads, but when it comes to science, jg just posts links to denier blogs. Once jg did post something interesting on biofuels--maybe a topic for another thread?

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

OMG---jg is dialoguing. Actually I'm interested in science. I used SCIENCE to refute your bloggers. You have yet to respond to the links I provided to show that there is strong SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE based upon SCIENCE and FACTS that the crap you posted is bogus---where's your SCIENCE?

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey